Prev Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 Next You cannot reply to this topic Go to first unread post 51 replies to this topic

[chownah]

Heng, on 2005-05-22 19:15:28, said:

Yeah, and you should have seen South Beach Miami about 150 years ago.  What a mess they've made of it, eh?  When will they tear down the hotels and high rises so that the trees can grow back?  Does anyone care?  "TIF"  (This is Florida)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lots of people care about the deforestation in the US...Florida included. The fight to save/reclaim the everglades is ongoing with some battles lost and some battles won.

There is an ongoing battle to preserve the old growth forests in the North Pacific coast region. Clinton's presidency helped alot to preserve it and GW Bush's presidency is doing alot to cut it down....Alot of people care about this and work hard to preserve some of the natural beauty in the US. So, Heng, what is your point? I'm not asking this in anger or as a flame...I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying it is unfair to think that people in Thailand should work to preserve its natural beauty? Are you saying that US citizens should only care about US forests and not comment about Thai forests? Are you saying noone really cares anywhere? I really do not understand.

[Heng]

I'm saying that cutting down forests is nothing new to the world. It's certainly not a greater crime that the Thais are doing it AFTER many other nations have done the exact same things to their own landscape.

[Ajarn]

Heng, on 2005-05-22 20:02:55, said:

I'm saying that cutting down forests is nothing new to the world.  It's certainly not a greater crime that the Thais are doing it AFTER many other nations have done the exact same things to their own landscape. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on Heng, what's up with that kind of defensive response? I've always considered you a reasoning poster here. What gives now? You sound to me like you are suggesting that is not really important, and shouldn't be addressed.

It is a Thailand issue, having NOTHING to do with comparisons to any other country, or who does what/first.... It has zero connection to what happens regarding the fires and deforestation, corruption, etc, in the north of Thailand, right?

This is my home, too. I care what happens, and I believe it's important to look at issues of importance to all head-on and truthfuly, and to also make others aware of issues that affect them, too. It's obvious to see the health issues from fires, the corruption issues involving many, as well as the societal issues...

I fear that it won't change, because that's what Thailand history has shown. I only hope it will, because a change would benefit all, obviously.

Off the soapbox

[Heng]

Oh, it's an important issue all right.

I'm just saying those responsible for deforestation (etc.) are merely following a pattern that has been followed the world over -thus 'TIT' is hardly a reason why it's happening and why there seems to be little concern for it happening-. I don't believe one should expect them to be MORE righteous than the status quo.

[Ajarn]

Heng, on 2005-05-22 21:03:52, said:

Oh, it's an important issue all right.

I'm just saying those responsible for deforestation (etc.) are merely following a pattern that has been followed the world over -thus 'TIT' is hardly a reason why it's happening and why there seems to be little concern for it happening-.    I don't believe one should expect them to be MORE righteous than the status quo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, the TiT comment got you a little sideways, perhaps. Maybe it bit too pointed for some.

Let me be clear that it was not a slam on Thailand. But it's not the Portugese coming in to clear the land. It's a Thai issue, obviously, and comparisons like you made don't serve a purpose except to help muddy the waters, I feel. Responsibilities and blame aren't the issue, because 'who' is obvious to most, I feel sure. My post was partly in reponse to my own frustration that more don't seem care as I do. Some do, of course, too, and some choose to remain uninvolved. Such is life, I realize.

I just don't want to 'mai pen rai' this time...

[Heng]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land. More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.

[Ajarn]

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. My house is within a man-made jungle

When I see these big new houses in new muubaans without any greenery, they look so naked and unappealing. Hot, too!

[Johpa]

Heng, on 2005-05-22 15:14:09, said:

Falang tourists discovered Chiang Mai?    Myself, we're fairly proud of the fact that we discovered Bangkapi.  Just a bunch of native Sioux and Navajo before we got there. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My apologies for not having put the word in quotation marks to more clearly indicate my intended meaning.

[Johpa]

Ajarn, on 2005-05-22 17:17:32, said:

Anyone driving around in the hills around the north can see quite clearly that the locals don't need Bangkokians to ###### things up- they've been doing that quite nicely themselves...

The entire area around Ponyang, for one example, is being turned into growing areas. I have photos of mountain views in the area from 15-20 years ago that show completely forested moutain sides that are now completely un-forested and being used by mostly Hmong to grow cash crops which are sold in Chiang Mai markets...

Along the road from Mae Suay to Fang, you can see the fields growing in size every year, stretching right up to the tops of the moutains. None of this is private land, either. Fires are lit, then the land is cleared and planted with cash crops... Ignored by authorities, it seems.

Same along the road to Wiang Haeng, especially around the two largest Lisaw villages (more like towns now). A couple of months ago, while driving through there at night, it was easy to see the lines of fire everywhere.... In the photo below, this line of fire that goes up the mountainside is perhaps 500 meters long, starting from the edge of the road. Completely ignored by any authorities, even though this was beautiful forest with many old-growth trees...


No sign of any interest from authorities, once again....

The sad part of 'TiT'. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Johpa]

Oops, sorry, hit the wrong button.

[chownah]

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

[Heng]

chownah, on 2005-05-23 02:33:05, said:

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but how many times in human history have people chosen to protect "natural" treasure as the expense of tangible treasure?

[Ajarn]

Heng, on 2005-05-23 11:29:10, said:

chownah, on 2005-05-23 02:33:05, said:

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but how many times in human history have people chosen to protect "natural" treasure as the expense of tangible treasure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many times actually, but nearly enough, obviously.

In my birth state of California, authorities are extremely serious now about environmental issues, sometimes to extremes... But California has done a lot to protect forests, especially... If I go to the States, I can feel pretty safe about the rivers and lakes I swim in being free from dangerous pollutants. No way would I have that same confidence here, frankly, and with good reason.

As you suggest, the profit motive is going to be a priority for many. But that's no excuse to simply put one's head in the sand and not fight against those who want to destroy the environment to fill their own purses.

Thailand has had accomplishments on some environmental issues, but many more remain and continue to grow....

[Limbo]

chownah, on 2005-05-15 13:30:37, said:

Yeah, the north sucks.  All you tourists just stay away from the north.  Its really ugly here and absolutely nothing of interest to do.  Better to go south....but not north....definitely not north......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree absolutely!
Lanna culture? Shopping in Big C? Foreigners in short pants on flip-flops?
The one after the other old temple is replaced by the modern standard version.
Restauration of beautiful old things doesn't seem to fit within the 'tam boon' notion.
Very regrettable.
Matchbox architecture with a 'galae' on the rooftop is called Lanna culture.
Everybody has his or her mouth full about 'Lanna-culture' and if you ask what that means they really don't know.
'Lanna-culture' exists, I think. Like Santa Claus, some would say.

When the Northern cultural autorities refer to it, they refer to it as something from the past. So what could schoolclasses benefit from learning about Lanna culture, dear Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce of Chiangmai? Could you give an exemple?

[chownah]

Heng, on 2005-05-23 11:29:10, said:

chownah, on 2005-05-23 02:33:05, said:

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but how many times in human history have people chosen to protect "natural" treasure as the expense of tangible treasure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm still trying to understand exactly what point you are making. Are you trying to say that the Thai government and the Thai people are doing just as much as everyone else in preserving natural habitat and you think it is unfair for people to single out Thailand as being so bad in this effort?

[Heng]

chownah, on 2005-05-23 08:49:06, said:

I'm still trying to understand exactly what point you are making.  Are you trying to say that the Thai government and the Thai people are doing just as much as everyone else in preserving natural habitat and you think it is unfair for people to single out Thailand as being so bad in this effort?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Preserving natural habitats now? Of course not. Maybe after it's been nearly razed to the ground (as say the state of the environment in 1800's California was when compared to present day California), then we'll take up some token efforts to protect what's left. How could one expect anything more?

[chownah]

Heng, on 2005-05-23 18:11:28, said:

chownah, on 2005-05-23 08:49:06, said:

I'm still trying to understand exactly what point you are making.  Are you trying to say that the Thai government and the Thai people are doing just as much as everyone else in preserving natural habitat and you think it is unfair for people to single out Thailand as being so bad in this effort?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Preserving natural habitats now? Of course not. Maybe after it's been nearly razed to the ground (as say the state of the environment in 1800's California was when compared to present day California), then we'll take up some token efforts to protect what's left. How could one expect anything more?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape. If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape. I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is. Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data?

Are you Thai?

[Heng]

chownah, on 2005-05-23 13:13:14, said:

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is.  Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data? 

Are you Thai?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Thai.

My point is that it's easy to point fingers at "deforesters" when you've already deforested to your heart's content. And no kidding the rate is faster nowadays. We're working with chainsaws, not axes.

[Ajarn]

Heng, on 2005-05-23 21:47:02, said:

chownah, on 2005-05-23 13:13:14, said:

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is.  Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data? 

Are you Thai?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Thai.

My point is that it's easy to point fingers at "deforesters" when you've already deforested to your heart's content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on Heng, "You have already deforested" ??

I haven't. Have you?

So, now what?

[Heng]

Well, we did clear out a few trees several years ago to make another driveway, but in general, we tend to keep the trees where they are.

[Johpa]

chownah, on 2005-05-23 09:33:05, said:

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where would one find old growth forests in Northern Thailand? The closest I have found in Chiang Mai are the narrow strips along creekbeds that were too steep to be forested long ago. I did see some healthy secondary growth forests years ago out along the border west of Khun Yuam. And I vaguely remember some healthy secondary growth forests around the Kok river and while hiking up to Akha villages like Wawee when such villages were only accessible by foot.

When I first lived in Thailand one could still find photos in the villages of people having shot deer or forest felines. Now it is hard to find anyone alive who remembers having seen monkeys, deer, and the like in the long ravaged forests up north. One can still find elephants, but they all have chains draging from their feet. And it has been several years since I have been offered pangolin meat. Hike through the forest now and it is nothing but insects and small birds. Good thing I can eat grubs.

Sorry, but to even find descriptions of old growth forests in Chiang Mai you might want to try reading some of the 18th & 19th century travel writers.

[Johpa]

chownah, on 2005-05-23 09:33:05, said:

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where would one find old growth forests in Northern Thailand? The closest I have found in Chiang Mai are the narrow strips along creekbeds that were too steep to be forested long ago. I did see some healthy secondary growth forests years ago out along the border west of Khun Yuam. And I vaguely remember some healthy secondary growth forests around the Kok river and while hiking up to Akha villages like Wawee when such villages were only accessible by foot.

When I first lived in Thailand one could still find photos in the villages of people having shot deer or forest felines. Now it is hard to find anyone alive who remembers having seen monkeys, deer, and the like in the long ravaged forests up north. One can still find elephants, but they all have chains draging from their feet. And it has been several years since I have been offered pangolin meat. Hike through the forest now and it is nothing but insects and small birds. Good thing I can eat grubs.

Sorry, but to even find descriptions of old growth forests in Chiang Mai you might want to try reading some of the 18th & 19th century travel writers.

[chownah]

Heng, on 2005-05-23 21:47:02, said:

chownah, on 2005-05-23 13:13:14, said:

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is.  Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data? 

Are you Thai?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Thai.

My point is that it's easy to point fingers at "deforesters" when you've already deforested to your heart's content. And no kidding the rate is faster nowadays. We're working with chainsaws, not axes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish you were right in your assertion that in the US they have "deforested to your heart's content." There is a lumber industry in the US whose heart will not be content until all old growth forest is cut. People and organizatoins whose prime goal is money will never have contented hearts....this is the same everywhere in the world.

[Ajarn]

Johpa, on 2005-05-24 05:02:01, said:

chownah, on 2005-05-23 09:33:05, said:

Heng, on 2005-05-22 22:44:01, said:

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where would one find old growth forests in Northern Thailand? The closest I have found in Chiang Mai are the narrow strips along creekbeds that were too steep to be forested long ago. I did see some healthy secondary growth forests years ago out along the border west of Khun Yuam. And I vaguely remember some healthy secondary growth forests around the Kok river and while hiking up to Akha villages like Wawee when such villages were only accessible by foot.

When I first lived in Thailand one could still find photos in the villages of people having shot deer or forest felines. Now it is hard to find anyone alive who remembers having seen monkeys, deer, and the like in the long ravaged forests up north. One can still find elephants, but they all have chains draging from their feet. And it has been several years since I have been offered pangolin meat. Hike through the forest now and it is nothing but insects and small birds. Good thing I can eat grubs.

Sorry, but to even find descriptions of old growth forests in Chiang Mai you might want to try reading some of the 18th & 19th century travel writers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said old growth forests. I said some old-growth trees, of which there are some still around in isolated areas and small patches, mostly in National Forests. The real damage being done is to watershed areas

Quote

Good thing I can eat grubs

Good thing that you don't have to, living in the States

[mnoorsapl]

george, on 2005-05-15 08:38:03, said:

Tourism dip in North sparks fear for its future

CHAING MAI: -- The northern region is becoming less popular among tourists as its charms as a cultural and arts centre are losing their lustre, according to a recent survey by the Tourism Authority of Thailand.

Saowaluk Chimada, vice-president of the Chiang Mai Chamber of Commerce, said the North’s tourism industry might have experienced a slowdown because the region’s main tourist destinations, Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, have lost their charm through constant development.

The Nation/Citylife 2005-05-15

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"cultural and arts centre are losing their lustre" may be promote Grungtep concept be of some help?. There are definately a lot of trees in the Northern than in the Central plains.

"North’s tourism industry might have experienced a slowdown " is more sensible reason. Why? May be divert those international flights to Chiegmai Airport will definately boost up tourism.